APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty in case No. 03-01711 of three counts of aggravated robbery, Class B felony, involving victims Henry Skelton,MarkMears, and John Norris, and one count of aggravated assault, a Class C felony, involving victim Myron Raymond. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range III, persistent offender, to thirty years for each aggravated robbery conviction and fifteen years for the aggravated assault conviction. Defendant was found guilty in case No. 03-01718 of one count of especially aggravated robbery, a Class A felony, of Dr. Charles White, and the trial court sentenced Defendant to sixty years as a Range III, persistent offender, for this offense. The trial court ordered Defendant’s sentences in case No. 03-01711 to be served consecutively to each other and consecutively to his sentence in case No. 03-01718, for an effective sentence of one hundred and sixty-five years. On appeal, Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. Defendant argues, however, that the trial court’s application of enhancement factors in determining the length of his sentences violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court, and the imposition of consecutive sentencing.

The husband filed for divorce after a marriage of over twenty-three years. The trial court granted the divorce to the wife on the ground of the husband's inappropriate marital conduct and divided the marital property equally between the parties. Because of the property division, and because the wife had more formal education than the husband, the court decided that she was not entitled to any alimony. The wife appealed. We modify the trial court's decree to eliminate the payment to the husband ordered as part of the property division. Because this modification serves the goal of self-sufficiency for the economically disadvantaged spouse, we affirm the denial of alimony. We also affirm the award of attorney's fees.

The petitioner, Roland Bennett, is currently serving a life sentence imposed in 1984. In 2001, the petitioner's counsel filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis on the basis of newly discovered evidence. After holding an evidentiary hearing on the matter, the coram nobis court dismissed the petition, and the petitioner now brings this appeal challenging that action. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the lower court.

Petitioner, Miqwon Deon Leach, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief arguing that he was denied his constitutional right to testify and that his rights under the Interstate Compact on Detainers were violated. Petitioner also contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance (1) by failing to follow the procedures set forth in State v. Momon; (2) by failing to object to the State’s failure to comply with the provisions of the Interstate Compact on Detainers, and (3) by failing to file a motion for a speedy trial. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

This workers’ compensation appeal has been referred to the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-225(e)(3) for hearing and reporting to the Supreme Court of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court found that the employee had sustained a 14% permanent partial disability to the body as a whole for a work related shoulder injury. The employer contends that the trial court erred in accepting the evaluating physician’s higher impairment rating over that of the treating physician who gave the employee a 6% permanent partial impairment rating. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The petitioner, Dustin Dwayne Davis, was convicted by a jury in 1998 of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, misdemeanor theft and two (2) counts of aggravated rape. As a result, the petitioner was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 100 years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the petitioner's convictions and sentence. See State v. Dustin Dwayne Davis, No. 03C01-9712-CR-00543, 1999 WL 135054 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Mar. 15, 1999), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 11, 1999). The petitioner subsequently sought post-conviction relief in which he alleged, inter alia, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial. After a hearing, the petition for post-conviction relief was denied. On appeal, the petitioner challenges the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief. Because we determine that the petitioner was afforded the effective assistance of counsel, we affirm the post-conviction court's dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief.

This is an action by the mother of a child, in which she is joined by her husband, to terminate the parental rights, if any, of the apparent biological father of her child. Prior to the commencement of this action, a separate action was filed by the apparent biological father to establish parentage. That parentage action was tried and appealed, the result of which was a ruling that the apparent biological father was not the "legal" father of her child, TKY, that the legal father of TKY was the husband of the child's mother, and the apparent biological father had no parental rights or responsibilities. That ruling renders the issue of the apparent biological father's parental rights, or lack thereof, moot. We therefore vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition to terminate parental rights as being moot.

The appellant, Raschad Donnell Simpson, pled guilty to possession of cocaine for resale. As a result of the plea agreement, the appellant was sentenced to serve eight (8) years in incarceration. During his incarceration, the appellant was accepted to and participated in a bootcamp program and on August 29, 2001 was released to probation. Subsequently, a probation violation warrant was issued against the appellant alleging a violation of probation based on a new arrest and conviction. At a probation revocation hearing, the appellant pled guilty to the violation. As a result, the trial court revoked the appellant's probation and ordered him to serve the eight (8) year sentence in confinement. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the appellant's probation, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Following a jury trial, Defendant, Edward Johnson, was convicted of Class E felony theft, and was sentenced to serve six years imprisonment as a Range III career offender. In this appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by requiring him to go to trial in this case
after he had requested a continuance. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. However, under the particular facts of this case as set forth in the record, we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error by denying Defendant's request for a continuance. We therefore reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.

This is a casualty insurance case. A bank had a mortgage on residential property. The homeowner stopped making payments on the mortgage, abandoned the property, and allowed the homeowner’s insurance coverage on the property to lapse. The bank, in order to protect its interest in the property, purchased insurance coverage on behalf of the homeowner. The bank later sold the mortgage to a third party and cancelled the insurance coverage. The new mortgagee purchased insurance coverage for the property. Shortly thereafter, the property burned, resulting in a total loss. The new mortgagee’s insurance company filed the instant lawsuit, asking for a declaratory judgment that the prior insurance policy was still effect at the time of the fire. The trial court held that the prior policy was not in effect at the time of the fire. The new insurance company appealed, arguing that, in the course of the purchase, the prior insurance coverage had transferred to the new mortgagee as assignee of the prior mortgage holder, and that the bank’s cancellation of the prior insurance policy was ineffective. We affirm, finding that the prior insurance coverage was not transferred to the new mortgage holder and that the prior insurance policy was not in effect at the time of the fire.
 

The petitioner, Michael L. Smith, appeals from the trial court's order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner has failed to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The pro se petitioner, James R. Blevins, appeals from the dismissal of his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. The states moves the court to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of this court’s rules. The motion was properly dismissed for lack of merit. Accordingly, the
state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The Petitioner, Elton Bowers, appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief.  The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State's motion is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Defendants appeal the denial of a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 50 motion for directed verdict. This is Plaintiff's second action against Defendants to recover damages resulting from a personal injury accident. The first action was timely filed and voluntarily dismissed. This action, which is a separate, subsequent action, was commenced within one year of the voluntary dismissal; however, Plaintiff did not plead sufficient facts in the complaint to establish the timeliness of the commencement of the new action. Defendants affirmatively pled the statute of limitations defense in their answer; however, Plaintiff did not amend the complaint nor introduce evidence at trial to address the statute of limitations issue. Defendants put the affirmative defense at issue during closing arguments. The trial court took the motion under advisement, the trial proceeded and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Thereafter, the trial court elected to take judicial notice of facts appearing in the record in the first action, the date the first action was commenced and the date of the voluntary dismissal, determined the second action was timely filed and denied Defendants' motion. We affirm.

This appeal lies from a trial court’s entry of a purported consent order of dismissal. The trial court entered judgment based upon the defendant’s submitted consent decree. The plaintiffs contend, however, that they did not consent to the terms of the order as written and withdrew any consent prior to entry of the judgment. Because the statement of the evidence in this case is irreconcilable, we vacate the judgment of the trial court entering the consent decree.

Husband and Wife were married in Mexico while wife's divorce from her previous husband remained pending. The couple eventually moved to Tennessee. Following a marriage of approximately eighteen years, wife filed for divorce alleging adultery, inappropriate marital conduct, and irreconcilable differences. Husband filed an answer and counterclaim for annulment alleging that the marriage between the parties was invalid due to wife's prior subsisting marriage. Following a bench trial, the court below declared a marriage by estoppel and granted wife a divorce on the ground of adultery. The trial court then distributed the parties' accumulated property and ordered husband to establish a lifetime trust with income to be distributed to wife and the remainder to the parties' children. The parties were granted joint custody of their four children with wife designated as primary residential parent. From this order, wife appeals. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, as modified.

This appeal involves the financial aspects of the dissolution of a twelve-year marriage. Even though the husband filed a petition for divorce in the Circuit Court for Williamson County, the parties eventually stipulated that the wife was entitled to divorce on the ground of the husband's adultery. Following a bench trial, the court awarded the wife eighty percent of the net marital estate, $1,000 per month in rehabilitative alimony for three years, $25,000 in alimony in solido, and one-half of her attorney's fees. The husband appealed. We have determined that the evidence does not support the manner in which the trial court divided the marital estate, the amount of the rehabilitative alimony award, the alimony in solido award, or the award for attorney's fees. We modify the judgment accordingly.

Appellee brought suit against Appellant, a car dealership, after experiencing problems with purchased vehicle. Among other things, Appellee alleged fraud in the inducement. Appellant sought to enforce arbitration agreement in the contract for sale. The trial court ruled that, under Tennessee law, claims of fraud in the inducement are not arbitrable. Appellant appeals the trial court’s judgment. Finding no error, we affirm.

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce as it concerns custody of the parties' children.  The trial court awarded primary residential custody to Father and provided for visitation with Mother. Mother appeals asserting that, pursuant to the factors set out in T.C.A. §36-6-106, she should have been named primary residential parent. We affirm.

The petitioner, Cornelius Richmond, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions for seven counts of aggravated robbery. He claims that Tennessee’s Post-Conviction Procedure Act as applied to his case violates the due process clause and that the trial court erred in sentencing. We affirm the trial court.

This appeal involves a charge of civil contempt. The plaintiff wife and defendant husband were divorced by final decree entered in May 2001. In the final decree, the husband was ordered to pay the wife alimony in futuro as well as marital debts. He did not do so. In December 2003, the wife filed a petition in the trial court, seeking to hold the husband in contempt as well as an award of the alimony arrearage. The wife gave the husband notice of the contempt proceedings by mailing a copy of the petition and notice of hearing to the husband’s counsel of record. At the hearing, the husband’s counsel moved to dismiss the petition for contempt, arguing that the husband had not received proper notice of the hearing. This motion was denied, and the husband was held in contempt of court and ordered jailed until the contempt was purged. The husband now appeals. We affirm, concluding that the husband received sufficient notice of the petition for contempt.

This is a boundary line case. Appellant appeals from the judgment of the Hamilton County Chancery Court establishing the boundary line as shown by the survey of Appellee's expert. Finding that the survey adopted by the trial court is not in line with Appellee's deed and/or Appellant's deed conveying an additional triangular piece of land, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

In this divorce case, Husband/Appellant appeals and raises issues involving valuation and division of marital property, rehabilitative alimony, and attorney fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The defendant, Anthony Allen, was convicted by a Shelby County jury and received an effective sentence of 124 years for numerous aggravated rape and aggravated robbery charges consolidated into a single trial. In this appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred in consolidating the indictments; (2) the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences; (3) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress a post-arrest statement; (4) the evidence is insufficient to support three of his convictions; and (5) the State failed to elect the offense for which conviction was sought in two case numbers. Following a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we reverse one of the defendant’s aggravated rape convictions and remand it for a new trial, affirm the remaining judgments of conviction, and remand the case for a new sentencing hearing to determine whether consecutive sentencing is appropriate.

The petitioner, Kenneth Ray Haynes, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief.  The single issue presented for review is whether the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The judgment is affirmed.